This paper is a project report of a policy analysis of state accountability measures used to evaluate public schools. Current state accountability systems use a variety of accountability measures to evaluate their schools. The inconsistent measures can create misrepresentations of how well or how poorly schools are educating their students. Two identical schools in different states can receive entirely different rankings based on the measures applied from their respective state accountability systems. The purpose of this project was to provide recommendations to state policymakers and state department of education officials on what accountability measures should be included in their state accountability systems.
The project team conducted a review of literature to create criteria and indicators for effective accountability measures. An expert panel provided feedback to the project team to evaluate and strengthen the criteria and indicators. The four criteria are: (a) status versus growth models of measuring student achievement results; (b) setting content and proficiency standards on high-stakes tests; (c) components of high-stakes tests; and (d) other accountability measures. The team‘s project was a policy analysis comparing 17 selected states‘ current accountability policies to the team-created criteria and indicators. The team reported an overall analysis of its findings by state and by indicator.
The project revealed that there were vast differences among the states examined in how they determine the effectiveness of schools in their state accountability systems. The project team offered seven recommendations to state policymakers and department of education officials. The findings of the project are that some states have begun implementing many of the recommendations of the project team. However, it is imperative that states use a growth measure for high-stakes testing results rather than using a status measure exclusively. States must also continue to create valid and reliable assessments that go beyond multiple-choice in math, reading, and science only. Measures other than high-stakes testing are just as important when evaluating schools. Current initiatives, such as Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Race to the Top, and SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), are providing incentives to states to adopt many of the accountability measures the team is recommending.
|Advisor:||Everson, Susan Toft, Wright, Gary|
|Commitee:||Rebore, Ronald, Rush, Douglas, Williams, Michael|
|School:||Saint Louis University|
|School Location:||United States -- Missouri|
|Source:||DAI-A 72/10, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Educational evaluation, Education Policy|
|Keywords:||Accountability, Measures, NCLB, No Child Left Behind, Statewide measures|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be